I think it is a mischaracterization but the difference might be seen as a difference in degree instead of kind. Rising to national leadership demands a certain ability to bet the future of your nation, the lives and well being of your citizens, the shape of the world, on a roll of the dice and a bet based on inadequate information.

Hitler, by many accounts, was surprised that Britain declared war when he invaded Poland. But even now there are differing opinions about exactly how surprised he was and what his original plan was.

History is like that.

History is often revisited by careful historians and researchers. Yes, there are the cranks and nit-pickers who tend to weave in supernatural levels of foreknowledge and conspiracy into every act. But careful research can shift our understanding of events and do it in a repeatable and well documented way.

The book "Dresden" by Fredrick Taylor was written using the original German accounts and documentation that had been locked away behind the iron curtain and in Russian archives. The result is that he shows how the Soviet Union greatly exaggerated the number of casualties. It also revisits the decision to bomb the city. But most of the book is a series of terrifying first-person accounts of the fires and devastation that shows that there was no need to exaggerate the horror.

http://www.amazon.com/Dresden-Tuesday-February-13-1945/dp/0060006765

Another good book is "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" by James D. Hornfischer. It is the little known story of a battle group of small 'jeep' carriers and a screen of light escorts that runs up against a battle group of Japanese capital ships, including the largest battleship ever built. Outnumbered and massively outgunned the tiny escorts turn toward the enemy fleet and charge as the carriers turn the other way, make smoke, and run away as fast as a slow ship can.

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary/dp/0553381482